Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Clauses Will Allow PIOs To Deny Information

Viju B I TNN

Mumbai: This is the second time in the past four years that the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which has made a difference to the lives of millions of ordinary people, is under the threat of becoming toothless. This time around, the Centre has proposed several amendments to the sunshine act, including denial of information about file notings where decision is yet to be taken and adding clauses that allow a public information officer (PIO) to deny information by deeming it as frivolous or vexatious in nature. Former city-based RTI activist Shailesh Gandhi, who is now the central information commissioner, Delhi, emphasised that the RTI Act must not be touched as its provisions empower citizens to procure information without delay and harassment from state officials. “Any kind of change will only cause confusion and it will be used as a ploy by PIOs to deny information.’’ The proposal for amending the act in order to strengthen it came up first during President Pratibha Patil’s keynote address to the Parliament on June 4. Thereafter, it came to the spotlight on October 14 when the department of personnel and training (DoPT) had a meeting with information commissioners where they released key details of the proposed amendments. “The DoPT had proposed amendments such as defining institutions which have substantial finance funding and even adding sub-sections to Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the RTI Act empowers citizen to suo moto inspect government files and documents and there is no need to add a citizen charter to it. Similarly, quasi-government organisations and charitable trusts partly funded by the government comes within the ambit of the RTI Act,’’ Gandhi said. The RTI seminar was organised by the Bombay Chartered Accountant Society (BCAS) along with Mahiti Adhikar Manch and Public Concern for Governance Trust. About 50 RTI activists and citizens participated in a discussion on future course of action to oppose these amendments.PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Denying information on file notings where decisions have yet to be made Denying information on the grounds that the query is frivolous or vexatious Fresh definition on the nature of institutions which have substantial funding Citizens’ charter to be added to RTI Act’s Section 4 Formation of a committee of information commission bench

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Thursday, October 15, 2009

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Mumbai: The holiday on election day, with all the attendant hoopla, didn’t really impact the mentality of the average middle-class Mumbaikar who is known to prefer holidaying and shopping to voting. The voter turn-out on Tuesday was 50% according to the Central Election Commission—just a notch above the 49% registered in the 2004 assembly polls. NGOs, who have been priming Mumbaikars to be more responsible, say that it was the woeful lack of good candidates that made people reluctant to make the journey to the polling booths. “We put in a lot of effort, building up the pitch long before October 13,” says Anandini Thakoor, chairperson, H-West Ward Citizens’ Trust. “We went from door to door, arranged for transport for handicapped voters, but it all came to nought because of the candidates--not only in our ward but everywhere. In many wards there were sitting MLAs who haven’t done a thing for the city, yet were given tickets. People were confounded at the lack of choice; they were also disgusted.” James John of AGNI, an organisation which has been building up voter awareness for the last several years, says it is the attitude of the average Mumbaikar that is to blame. “The stance is, ‘We don’t really have any issues, and the administration will continue as it is whether we vote or not, so why vote?’ “ he says. “Our job is to change this attitude, and we’re continuing to work at it.” However, many enlightened voters aver that building up awareness does not amount to much if they are eventually confronted with unsuitable candidates. A senior citizen who wanted to vote for the Congress in Mahim constituency realised that the candidate was a Shiv Sena rebel who walked out of the party only last month; another voter from Bandra East who decided to give a chance to alternative politics and cast her vote for the Loksatta Party was put off on discovering that the candidate had been a part of the Samajwadi Party previously. Many disillusioned voters decided to cast a negative vote, but faced difficulties on account of ignorant polling officers (see box). “It’s also untrue that we don’t have issues,” says a disgruntled middle-class voter. “Of course we do, but which party addresses them? Every party has its own agenda on how to make money from Mumbai--if the Congress has its own set of builders which it patronises to the detriment of this bleeding city, so does the Sena-BJP. None of them think of civic issues, crumbling infrastructure, vanishing open spaces, and how hellish life in Mumbai has become--they only make it worse. So for us it’s still a choice between the devil and the deep sea.”No-votes take poll staff by surprise The day wasn’t easy for those who wished to cast a novote, with most polling officers ignorant about the Section 49 (o) option. Some were forced to vote after inking their finger, while others had to bear the brunt of the officers’ ire. Most had to wait for hours before they got their way. Paresh Divecha stubbornly waited over two hours at UttkarshMandirSchool at Malad till the staff finally called in their commissioner. “Shouldn’t they have been told about this option in their election training?” he says. “I told the commissioner, ‘You’re a servant of the public and it’s your duty to allow citizens to exercise their choice fully’.” Divecha left after filling in the 49 (o) form and registering his lack of confidence in all the candidates.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

No action was taken against the PIO and the first appellate authority who handled my matter so callously. Instead, he too defended the two authorities, stating that the PIO should be given more time, as the act was fairly new.

I had filed an RTI application in the Building Proposal Department (Bandra Western Suburbs) thrice. However in all the cases, my request for information was denied, either by charging me with excess fee or asking me to go on my own to an inspection of the building concerned.

When, I had appealed against these denials (in the first appeal), I was shocked and surprised with the way the First Appellate authority dealt with me. I felt that I had made some big mistake by using the RTI. The authorities were not ready to listen my version and defended the PIO instead.

Then I had gone ahead and lodged a complaint with the SIC, regarding the behaviour and the way the appeal was taken. In this second appeal, I had gone to the office of Dr Suresh Joshi (SIC) and attended about 10 hearings in the matter concerned. The commissioner was not punctual and the process took more than a year to complete.

No action was taken against the PIO and the first appellate authority who handled my matter so callously. Instead, he too defended the two authorities, stating that the PIO should be given more time, as the act was fairly new and he was already overloaded with work. He also commented on the plight of the poor PIOs due to the sheer number of applications submitted in our country.

Now, even after going through the PIO, the first appellate authority and the SIC himself, getting into six to seven complaints, I did not receive the desired answers, then what usefulness can be ascribed to the act?

Moreover, getting the information after more than a year doesn’t solve anything and the subject matter dies its natural death till the time SIC gives order. Then, after giving the order also, there is no specific framework where the SIC has control on the PIO and can pressure him for delivering the information on time.

Coming back to the survey on the RTI, my rating for the system automatically became zero as, until and unless the implementing authority, who is on the seat, would not work under the preview of the act, nothing can be changed. It is his duty is to work as per the act and not defend PIOs, giving plausible views on their conditions.

If he wants to put his views and feelings in the act, he should approach the right authority and get the act changed instead of stating it during the appeal and wasting valuable public money। रवि नीर

Thursday, October 8, 2009

UNTIL the last Lok Sabha elections, Yash Chopra had never voted in his 42 years. For, he thought it a futile exercise, given the lack of good leaders to choose from. However, now Chopra has found a way to express his protest against candidates, who according to him didn't deserve his vote.Chopra now casts a 'No Vote', and he isn't alone in this. Disillusioned, over 250 residents of Andheri (East) have been using the strongest tool available within electoral democracy - to register their protest vote against the system.

Confirming that the citizen's No-Vote gets officially recorded as a vote not cast, thereby preventing bogus voting, Arun Prasad, the poll observer for Sewree, said, "Every citizen is within his right to refuse casting a vote, getting his vote registered.There is a separate Election Commission circular that specifies so."

Says James John, the AGNI coordinator for Andheri (East) who hasn't voted in the past seven elections (he started in 2002), "It's simple. If anyone gave you rotten tomatoes, would you compromise and buy them, even if sold at a lesser price? If not, then why would you want to compromise on the candidates and vote for someone even if you aren't convinced?" "As we do not have good candidates, casting your vote in any one's favour would be a compromise with democracy," added Ravi Nair, another AGNI member who along with John is wooing non-voters. While over 250 people registered a 'no vote' in Andheri in the Lok Sabha elections early this year, citizens from the Mahalakshmi area had consulted him before the '09 elections."About 15,000 voters there registered a No Vote," says a surprised John.

But wouldn't 'no-votes' mar the spirit of democracy."Though the candidates are elected by us and not by their political parties, post-election they only go by their party whip on policy decisions. Did any MP ever consult and respect public opinion while passing the nuclear deal last year?" The solution, say the activists, would be to put up citizens' candidates. Says Nair, "We want a candidate who will ask for our opinion and respect it after being elected. That will be possible only when more and more ordinary citizens get elected." Till then, vote without actually doing so. What the rulebook says Under Section 49 (0) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, if an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form 17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon, as required in the sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decides not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark.